HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

The Criminal Division is Responsible for hearing all serious criminal offences referred to it by the Magistrates' Courts. According to the Principal Judge's Circular, except for Commercial Court Judges who must attend to only Commercial Court cases, the rest of the Judges of the High Court who are based in Kampala are members of the Criminal Division irrespective of the other Divisions of the High Court that they belong to.

Each of the above judges is supposed to do, at least, one High Court Criminal Session in a year at Kampala

Physical address

High Court Building at Plot 2, the Square.

Visit website

https://judiciary.go.ug/data/smenu/13/Criminal%20Division.html

17 judgments

Advanced search

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

17 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
November 2016
Adriko v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 0030 of 2016) [2016] UGHCCRD 106 (28 November 2016) Criminal law	28 November 2016
Sunday v Uganda (HCT – 01 – CR – CN – 016B of 2016) [2016] UGHCCRD 115 (18 November 2016) Criminal law\|Burden of Proof	18 November 2016
Uganda v Nansubuga & Ors (HCT – 01 – CR – 00169 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCRD 113 (18 November 2016) Criminal law	18 November 2016
Uganda v Oribitunga (HCT – 01 – CR – SC – 0164 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCRD 98 (18 November 2016) Criminal law\|Burden of Proof	18 November 2016
Uganda v Agaba & Anor (HCT – 01 – CR – CS – 0040 of 2014) [2016] UGHCCRD 493 (15 November 2016) Late guilty pleas afford limited mitigation for aggravated robbery; each accused sentenced to 21 years with remand credit. Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – use of deadly weapon and causing bodily harm – serious offence warranting deterrent sentence; Guilty plea – late (mid-trial) pleas afford limited mitigation where trial has substantially proceeded; Sentencing – mitigation: youth, first offender status, remorse, ill-health, remand credit; Remedy – custodial sentence imposed; compensation not ordered in sentencing statement.	15 November 2016
Adimule v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 0028 of 2016) [2016] UGHCCRD 104 (14 November 2016) Criminal law	14 November 2016
Uganda v Byamukama & Ors (HCT – 01 – CR – SC – 83 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCRD 495 (14 November 2016) Prosecution failed to prove aggravated robbery due to inconsistent evidence, unreliable witnesses, and identification weaknesses. Criminal law – Aggravated robbery: elements (theft; violence; use/threat of deadly weapon; participation); burden of proof on prosecution; identification evidence; alibi; witness credibility; failure to exhibit weapons or recovered property.	14 November 2016
Uganda v Katemba & Anor (HCT – 01 – CR – CS – 0030 0F 2015) [2016] UGHCCRD 97 (14 November 2016) Criminal law\|Evidence Law	14 November 2016
Uganda v Sanyu & Anor (HCT – 01 – CR – SC – 05 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCRD 114 (11 November 2016) Criminal law\|Evidence Law	11 November 2016
Andama v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 0023 of 2016) [2016] UGHCCRD 105 (10 November 2016) Bail denied for an accused committed for trial due to gravity of charge, victim vulnerability, and risk to prosecution integrity. Criminal procedure – Bail pending trial – Accused committed for trial under Trial on Indictments Act – Exceptional circumstances and judicial discretion; balancing presumption of innocence with protection of a vulnerable child-victim and integrity of prosecution; ability to craft enforceable bail conditions; risk of absconding and interference with witnesses.	10 November 2016
Uganda v Byamukama (HCT – 01 – CR – CS – 0160 – 2015) [2016] UGHCCRD 494 (10 November 2016) Accused acquitted where prosecution failed to prove recent sexual act and accused's involvement beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal law – Aggravated defilement – Elements: age of victim; occurrence of sexual act; identity of perpetrator – proof beyond reasonable doubt. Evidentiary issues – medical evidence vs complainant testimony; absence of recent clinical signs undermining allegation of recent sexual intercourse. Identification and credibility – inconsistencies in witness accounts and possible motive/grudge affecting credibility.	10 November 2016
Uganda v Kahooza (HCT – 01 – CR – CS – 020 – 2013) [2016] UGHCCRD 96 (10 November 2016) Criminal law	10 November 2016
Uganda v Tumukunde (HCT – 01 – CR – SC – 148 of 2014) [2016] UGHCCRD 99 (10 November 2016) Criminal law\|Evidence Law	10 November 2016
Aciku & Anor v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 0024 of 2016) [2016] UGHCCRD 103 (8 November 2016) Medical incapacity during trial can justify an out‑of‑time appeal; impecuniosity without arguable grounds does not. Criminal procedure — Extension of time to appeal under s.28(6) & s.31(1) — Good cause required — Impecuniosity alone insufficient — Medical incapacity and inability to present defence can constitute good cause where arguable grounds exist.	8 November 2016
Onega v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 0010 of 2016) [2016] UGHCCRD 102 (4 November 2016) Bail refused for accused of child murder in domestic context due to risk to victims, witnesses and inadequate sureties. Bail — Murder — Domestic/family violence context — Discretion under Trial on Indictments Act — Exceptional circumstances required — Safety of victims and witnesses — Adequacy of sureties — Risk of interference and mob justice.	4 November 2016
Oringi v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 0011 of 2016) [2016] UGHCCRD 101 (4 November 2016) Applicant failed to prove exceptional circumstances; domestic‑violence murder allegations and witness risk warranted denial of bail. Criminal procedure – Bail – Indicted persons ordinarily require proof of "exceptional circumstances" to obtain bail under the Trial on Indictments Act; courts retain discretion. Evidence – Advanced age as exceptional circumstance requires independent corroboration where affidavit alone is insufficient. Domestic/family violence – Increased risk of interference with witnesses and danger to victims; courts must prioritize safety when considering bail. Sureties and conditions – Necessity that sureties be substantial and capable of guaranteeing compliance and protection of witnesses.	4 November 2016
Kermundu v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 0021 of 2016) [2016] UGHCCRD 100 (1 November 2016) An indicted person of advanced age may be granted bail where no real risk of absconding or interfering with the prosecution exists. Criminal procedure – Bail for an indicted person – Exceptional circumstances (advanced age) – Risk of absconding or interfering with witnesses – Suitability and conditions of sureties and bonds.	1 November 2016